gordon, galderma

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Pruitt et al 11978336 - (D) JENKS 103 ALCON RESEARCH LTD. RIDER, LANCE W

1631 Ex Parte Torre-Bueno 11641246 - (D) ADAMS 103 DAKO/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, LLP DEJONG, ERIC S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex Parte Zappi et al 12136331 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 GE Licensing COHEN, BRIAN W
REVERSED 2652 Ex Parte Hansen et al 12140610 - (D) ADAMS 102 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. ASANBAYEV, OLEG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2654 Ex Parte Redman et al 11496443 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD LEE, PING

2682 Ex Parte Griffin et al 12394243 - (D) HUGHES 103 ADDMG - BlackBerry DORSEY, RENEE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte CASTRO et al 12503553 - (D) HANLON 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED ZHU, SHENG-BAI

See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the mere fact that the prior art could be modified in the manner proposed would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2143.01 , 2144.08

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte QUAID et al 12144517 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Foley & Lardner LLP GANESAN, SUBA

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Rudolph 11851282 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC SPIELER, WILLIAM

2162 Ex Parte GAUSMAN et al 12177638 - (D) FINK 102/103 AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - NDQ LY, ANH

Although paragraph 438, cited by Appellants, states that “[s]uch voice capture is likely to be suboptimal in many situations, however, for example when there is substantial background noise, and accurate voice recognition is a difficult task at the best of times,” we do not agree this qualifying remark would lead a person of ordinary skill in a divergent direction as would be necessary for teaching away. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

2171 Ex Parte KAMIYABU 11971721 - (D) LaVIER 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP TRAPANESE, WILLIAM C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Sue 11782563 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

REEXAMINATION

GRANTED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 ROY A. TERRY Requester and Appellant v. PIPE RESTORATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte Gillanders et al 7,858,149 11/649,647 95001717 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN S. STEINBERGER TILL, TERRENCE R original FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P

Phillips, vitronics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2495 Ex Parte Al-Azzawi 11450476 - (D) BEAMER 103 MOORE PATENTS LEWIS, LISA C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Schneider 10833431 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 FAY SHARPE LLP KANTAMNENI, SHOBHA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Card 12263163 - (D) HAAPALA 103 103 Lowe Graham Jones PLLC DANG, KHANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Andersen et al 12226599 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC POLITO, NICHOLAS F

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Becker et al 12391629 - (D) JESCHKE 102 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) COLLINS, ANDREW WARREN

Here, neither party has identified intrinsic evidence to aid in the construction of “conduit,” and we have identified no such evidence in conflict with the construction provided by the combined dictionary definitions discussed above. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (stating that judges may “‘rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents’”) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc ., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Chen et al 11520564 - (D) HASTINGS 103 AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. PARSONS, THOMAS H

1789 Ex Parte Muncaster et al 11881197 - (D) KRATZ 103 JACK A. KANZ COLE, ELIZABETH M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Veazey et al 11551777 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MERCADO, RAMON A

2157 Ex Parte Unz 11704551 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP GIRMA, ANTENEH B

2194 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 11624253 - (D) KAISER 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC DAO, TUAN C.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Sriram 12592416 - (D) HAAPALA 103 Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC NG, CHRISTINE Y

2497 Ex Parte BUDYTA et al 12115372 - (D) SILVERMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) HOLMES, ANGELA R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte Power et al 13028308 - (D) KRATZ 112(1) 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP SUGLO, JANET L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte CHERNICK et al 12496196 - (D) GOODSON concurring BROWNE 103 obviousness-type double patenting LAMORTE & ASSOCIATES P.C. WONG, STEVEN B

3781 Ex Parte Heisner et al 12207696 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Baker Botts LLP POOS, MADISON LYNN

arkley

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Zane et al 10944281 - (D) SHIANG 102 EDELL, SHAPIRO, & FINNAN, LLC SINGH, AMRESH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Tsirline et al 11959033 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Zebra/Alston & Bird KELLY, RAFFERTY D

"However, the Examiner does not explain how the coplanar embodiment of paragraph 54 and the zig-zag pattern of the conductive strip 50 shown in the Figure 4b embodiment anticipatorily disclose the claimed first slot. See In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“[F]or the instant rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) to have been proper, the [applied] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Weber 12170222 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11725995 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 AT&T Legal Department - Roebuck LE, RONG

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1678 Ex Parte Niskanen et al 10548500 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 DLA PIPER US LLP SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

1621 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12014327 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP FAY, ZOHREH A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2681 Ex Parte Stewart et al 12415287 - (D) STEPHENS 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES BARAKAT, MOHAMED

2684 Ex Parte Christensen et al 12104696 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 FAY SHARPE LLP BURGDORF, STEPHEN R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Osborne et al 11714579 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BRINKS GILSON & LIONE BGL/Cook - Indianapolis SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION Requester v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,194,366 et al 10/274,439 95001574 - (D) KOHUT 102 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) Third Party Requester:International Business Machines Corporation Jones Day DEB, ANJAN K original TSAI, CAROL S W

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2143 RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, Third Party Requester, v. SIMPLEAIR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant. Ex Parte 6,735,614 et al 09/588,515 95000631 - (D) MCKONE 103 SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP For THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original NGUYEN, PHUOC H

deminski, wood, oetiker

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Zwieback et al 12067258 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. SAHA, BIJAY S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2194 Ex Parte Waldo et al 11385164 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK KRAFT, SHIH-WEI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Strub et al 11519195 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP HOFFMAN, MARY C

3752 Ex Parte Stuhlbacher et al 11569669 - (D) GOODSON 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Keller et al 12006820 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Lee Pederson KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

1619 Ex Parte Brzeczko et al 12019666 - (D) FREDMAN 102 Ashland Inc. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ. WHEELER, THURMAN MICHAEL

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Beadle et al 10582929 - (D) WILSON 103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY BULLOCK, IN SUK C

As to whether references are properly used to reject the claims of a pending patent application, the Federal Circuit has stated:

In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference must either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. See In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed.Cir.1986). . . . We have reminded ourselves and the PTO that it is necessary to consider “the reality of the circumstances”, In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979)—in other words, common sense—in deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor. 

In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (emphasis added).

Deminski, In re, 796 F.2d 436, 230 USPQ 313 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2141.01(a)
Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 707.07(f) ,   716.01(d) ,   1504.01(a) ,   2107.02 ,   2142 ,   2145 ,   2164.07

1788 Ex Parte KISHIOKA 12711538 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 SUGHRUE-265550 DUCHENEAUX, FRANK D

freeman, medtronic

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Chatterjee 11466239 - (D) HUDALLA 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC SANDIFER, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Testrake et al 11486763 - (D) MOHANTY 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

3741 Ex Parte Chen et al 11741385 - (D) MOHANTY 103 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) BOSWELL, BETH V

3742 Ex Parte Kusaka et al 12161746 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 RATNERPRESTIA DANG, KET D
REVERSED 2193 Ex Parte Chatterjee 11466239 - (D) HUDALLA 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC SANDIFER, MATTHEW D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Love et al 11194224 - (D) DIXON 103 103 GOOGLE C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP ADDY, ANTHONY S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2865 Ex Parte Moore 12577389 - (D) WILSON 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC HENSON, MISCHITA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Anderson 11588679 - (D) KINDER 103 103 Michael A. Mochinski LIM, SENG HENG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte MENDOZA et al 12647971 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. TONGUE, LAKIA J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Wohlfromm et al 12373439 - (D) WILSON 103/ obviousness-type double patenting NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP ZHU, WEIPING

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Kandasamy et al 12031778 - (D) KINDER 101 102 IBM Corp. (AUS/RCR) c/o Rolnik Law Firm, P.C. OTTO, ALAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte TOCK et al 12572656 - (D) STEPHENS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP HIGA, BRENDAN Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Wassingbo et al 12106418 - (D) FRAHM 103 WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP ZHOU, HONG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Nohilly 11502339 - (D) WIEKER 103 BODNER & O''ROURKE, LLP FISHBACK, ASHLEY LAUREN

3741 Ex Parte Venkataraman et al 12219534 - (D) HILL 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. GOYAL, ARUN

3744 Ex Parte Li et al 10875173 - (D) BARRETT 102 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC PETTITT, JOHN F

3781 Ex Parte Maia 12457795 - (D) BAYAT 103 ROSENBERG, KLEIN & LEE CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS INC., Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7954538 et al 12/931,644 95001829 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103/314 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: UNGERMAN IP, PLLC JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original YOON, KEVIN E

1735 BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS INC., Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7,882,886 et al 12/080,482 95001830 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103/314 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: UNGERMAN IP, PLLC JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original YOON, KEVIN E

The test for when a claim is broader in scope than the original claims is “if it contains within its scope any conceivable apparatus or process which would not have infringed the original patent.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this regard, a “claim that is broader in any respect is considered to be broader than the original claims even though it may be narrower in other respects.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 465 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 706.03(w) , 2250 , 2666.01

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 SAP AMERICA, INC. Requester v. WELLOGIX TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC Patent Owner Ex Parte 7669133 et al 10/125,120 95001397 - (D) SIU 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original RIES, LAURIE ANNE

OSRAM

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Cheruvathery 11613535 - (D) KAISER 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP GHOWRWAL, OMAR J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3696 Ex Parte Blythe 11964859 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP CHANG, EDWARD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Li et al 11777340 - (D) ENGELS 112(2) 112(2)/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP VO, TED T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Vasa 11850057 - (D) BUI 102 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte DOWD et al 12730841 - (D) WILSON 103 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. / Weatherford PEACE, RHONDA S

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Hartsuiker et al 12147998 - (D) McSHANE 103 112(1) Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP KRINKER, YANA B

1758 Ex Parte Rose et al 11998507 - (D) BEST 103 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP SunPower/ BSTZ DAM, DUSTIN Q

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Hsu et al 11684830 - (D) HOUSEL 103 MACRONIX C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP FOX, BRANDON C

2826 Ex Parte KOPTA 12417774 - (D) TIMM 102 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC DICKEY, THOMAS L

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Van Wees et al 12495543 - (R) ANKENBRAND 103 HONEYWELL/UOP SEIFU, LESSANEWORK T

Further, as the Federal Circuit has explpained, "how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the relative size of a genus or species in a particular technology is of critical importance." OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Osram Syvania Inc., v. America Induction Tech., 701 F.3d 698, 705 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2131.02

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 AKER BIOMARINE AS Requester and Respondent v. NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES & BIORESSOURCES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8057825 et al 11/640,235 95001819 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 COOLEY LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original FOX, ALLISON M

1657 Ex parte MICROPARTICLES PROTEOMICS, LLC APPELLANT Ex Parte 7462489 et al 11/935,048 90011666 - (D) POLLOCK 103 VANCE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PC CAMPELL, BRUCE R original LILLING, HERBERT J

alice, mayo, mullin, herbert

custom search

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Ting et al 11294354 - (D) POTHIER Concurring Baumeister 101/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO) SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Nguyen 11985484 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 101/102 Martin Khang Nguyen CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).

In judging whether claim 12 falls within the excluded category of abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–97 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then consider the elements of the claim — both individually and as an ordered combination — to assess whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. This is a search for an “inventive concept” — an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Id.

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

3685 Ex Parte CHATTE 11866007 - (D) HUTCHINGS 112(2)/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC HUANG, TSAN-YU J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Avery Dennison Corporation Requester v. Continental Datalabel, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Flynn et al 6,860,050 10/390,339 95001608 - (D) GUEST 112(1)/103 PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: AVERY DENNISION CORPORTION NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

Patent Owner provides no persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why the label assembly with the matrix strip intact would not meet the requirements of the claim. In re Mullin, 481 F.2d 1333, 1335 (CCPA 1973) (finding that a reference that describes a composition or structure as being an intermediate can be regarded as prior art) (citing In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390 (CCPA 1972)).

cortright

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Kinoshita 11547973 - (D) EVANS 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Solomon et al 12648325 - (D) BAYAT 102/103 FLSMIDTH FRANCIS, FAYE

3752 Ex Parte Babaev 11610402 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 Bacoustics, LLC BOECKMANN, JASON J

3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 11329440 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic CardioVascular WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

While the Examiner is encouraged to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation, we find the Examiner’s interpretation unreasonable in this instance. That is, there is no reason to interpret part of the diameter of Burt’s syringe between the “parallel spaced apart flange rings 38 and 39 for use as stabilizers” (FF 2) as a “locating portion” simply in order to permit the larger end of Burt’s syringe to become the “flange.” See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.”)

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111 , 2164.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Ibrahim et al 11796165 - (D) STRAUSS 102 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BROWN, MICHAEL J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Lau et al 12343149 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP WOODARD, JOYE L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Torchalski et al 11850489 - (D) BUI 102/103 Zebra/Alston & Bird YANG, JAMES J

continental can, oelrich

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Solomon et al 12648325 - (D) BAYAT 102/103 FLSMIDTH FRANCIS, FAYE

3752 Ex Parte Babaev 11610402 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 Bacoustics, LLC BOECKMANN, JASON J

In order to establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.” Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. at 1269 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981)) (emphasis added).

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) 2112

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Lau et al 12343149 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP WOODARD, JOYE L

Net MoneyIN, Arkley

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Dennison 12199306 - (D) HOELTER 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP HAYES, BRET C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Hu et al 11527881 - (D) WIEKER 102 Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. SHAY, DAVID M

“Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
...
In an anticipation rejection, “the reference must ‘clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”’ Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371 (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)). While “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88. Here, although Panescu discloses an expandable member, a mesh, and a plurality of thermocouples, Panescu does not disclose these elements “as arranged in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369.

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 88 USPQ2d 1751 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2152.02(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Vasko et al 12191741 - (D) FINK 103 103 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION / T&W GIRMA, ANTENEH B

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Parker et al 11905247 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 MARKS & CLERK HANCE, ROBERT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Conus et al 10544644 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 GRIFFIN & SZIPL, PC NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 CME GROUP, INC. Requester v. REALTIME DATA LLC, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7714747 et al 11/651,365 95001517 - (D) SIU 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Baker Botts, LLP HUGHES, DEANDRA M original NGUYEN, LINH V

self

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Sagar 11694068 - (D) GRIMES 103 Qualcomm /Fulbright & Jaworski LLP SONG, DAEHO D

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte ROAJANASIRI et al 12265313 - (D) HOUSEL 103 WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION RIVERA, JOSHEL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte LUBBERS et al 11771685 - (D) BEAMER 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate - MKM) PARIKH, KALPIT

2174 Ex Parte Baum et al 11706039 - (D) LaVIER 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. NGUYEN, LE V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Johnson 11521236 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Dierker & Associates, P.C. VILLENA, MARK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Safwat 12589904 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Donald E. Schreiber TSANG, LISA L

Moreover, claim 1 does not positively require the presence of whitetail deer, only the selection of an area of soil in a locale accessible to whitetail deer. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Appellant has not demonstrated that the “area of soil” discussed in Flora Locale is not “accessible to whitetail deer.”

Self, In re, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982) 2131.05